3 ms·

IANAD, but I believe that even after implantation, there's a lot of natural selection going on that helps remove unhealthy embryos. "30% to 40% of all fertilize

by klipt 9y ago

IANAD, but I believe that even after implantation, there's a lot of natural selection going on that helps remove unhealthy embryos. "30% to 40% of all fertilized eggs miscarry, often before the pregnancy is known" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#First_trimester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#First_trimester

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 9y ago
That's a good point. But as we say when determining how fast a given piece of software will execute, "tools, not rules." In other words, the fact that something should logically be safe certainly counts for something, but not as evidence.
- ewjordan 9y ago
  Ok, but...is there any particular reason to think IVF is not safe, other than a superstitious ookiness about the methodology of the thing? 40 years without any such indication is fairly strong evudence, IMO.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    1) There are a lot of studies showing an increased risk of various conditions, e.g. heart problems for babies conceived with ICSI. 2) It stands to reason that while some infertility is caused by issues that having nothing to do with the genetics of the sperm or egg (e.g. vitamin E deficiency), other cases may be caused by genetic conditions that have coevolved to cause fertility issues to prevent them from being passed along. 3) You'd have to completely rule out the possibility of sexual selection at the gamete level, even though this idea has been gaining traction in the last few years.
  - neolefty 9y ago
    Good point. Here's my try at it: IVF: Seems logically sound, since it is doing the same thing that happens in natural conception, just outside the body. But in vitro gametogenesis (IVG)—the technique the article talks about—could logically have similar issues to cloning. For example, telomere shortening & accumulated DNA damage come to mind, but I'm no expert.

by klipt 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 9y ago

That's a good point. But as we say when determining how fast a given piece of software will execute, "tools, not rules." In other words, the fact that something should logically be safe certainly counts for something, but not as evidence.

ewjordan 9y ago
Ok, but...is there any particular reason to think IVF is not safe, other than a superstitious ookiness about the methodology of the thing? 40 years without any such indication is fairly strong evudence, IMO.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  1) There are a lot of studies showing an increased risk of various conditions, e.g. heart problems for babies conceived with ICSI. 2) It stands to reason that while some infertility is caused by issues that having nothing to do with the genetics of the sperm or egg (e.g. vitamin E deficiency), other cases may be caused by genetic conditions that have coevolved to cause fertility issues to prevent them from being passed along. 3) You'd have to completely rule out the possibility of sexual selection at the gamete level, even though this idea has been gaining traction in the last few years.
- neolefty 9y ago
  Good point. Here's my try at it: IVF: Seems logically sound, since it is doing the same thing that happens in natural conception, just outside the body. But in vitro gametogenesis (IVG)—the technique the article talks about—could logically have similar issues to cloning. For example, telomere shortening & accumulated DNA damage come to mind, but I'm no expert.